From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: casts row to array and array to row |
Date: | 2011-10-11 18:48:39 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yLdGKChEdPHEtjYkv=-Py-Zdcon2ipFe4Vo8ku-jYp3g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2011/10/11 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> What do you think about this idea?
>
> It's a bad one.
>
>>> Well, a ROW can contain values of different types; an ARRAY can't.
>
>> yes, I know - but it should be problem only in few cases - when is not
>> possible to cast a row field to array field.
>
> This idea is basically the same as "data types don't matter", which is
> not SQL-ish and certainly not Postgres-ish.
hm. I agree, but if it were possible to create sql/plpgsql functions
accepting 'record', then you could at least rig the cast in userland
around hstore without resorting to hacky text manipulation and/or
flattening the record to text before doing the operation.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-10-11 18:53:00 | Re: SET variable - Permission issues |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2011-10-11 18:04:07 | Re: Range Types - typo + NULL string constructor |